Real-time Assessment of Neurology Residents' Perceptions of Inappropriate Consults.

Background: We sought to characterize perceptions of inappropriate neurology consults of neurology residents (NR) and requesting providers (RP) immediately following the consult interaction.

Methods: Student investigators were embedded in the Mount Sinai neurology consult service for 4 weeks in May/June 2018. For each consecutive neurology consult the NR's real-time attitudes toward the consult were evaluated with a survey using Likert scales. A similar survey was immediately administered to the RP who called the consult. Response scores for each attribute were dichotomized and data were analyzed descriptively in SPSS.

Results: Data from 69 consults were collected. NRs perceived 45% of consults as inappropriate and 82% of all consults as low urgency. When NRs perceived a consult as inappropriate, they felt more resistance (r=-0.79). NRs also felt more resistant when they thought that the RP could have cared for the patient without the consult (r=0.79). NRs felt that perceived medicolegal risk highly influenced the RP's decision to call a consult in 36% of cases. Of these "high liability" consults, NRs considered 76% inappropriate and 100% low urgency.

Conclusions: NRs were more likely to rate consults as inappropriate if they were also perceived as low urgency, strongly influenced by liability concerns, or unnecessary due to belief that the RP could have cared for the patient without the consult. Our findings suggest a discrepancy in how NRs and RPs perceive neurology consult appropriateness, and help to elucidate potential drivers of these perceptions that could be barriers to education and to interdisciplinary care.